Author Topic: Some Agencys are banning vista. (Read 1640 times)

brendo · « **Reply #45 on:** March 25, 2007, 07:01:39 PM »

OK, here are some test, as I thought the 25-30% slower comment is unfounded:

Music processing:
http://rainrecording.co.uk/vista/performance
Vista wins.

Graphics benchmarks:
http://www.ozhardware.com.au/content/view/18/1/1/2/
Looks like fundamental driver issues on one of the important tests.
Vista comes of really bad.

PCMark
http://www.ozhardware.com.au/content/view/18/1/1/3/
More trouble with graphics again.
Overall 10% slower than vista in PC Mark test (due to graphics issues)

Games:
Generally 4-10% slower.
Some games had a bad drop of 50% compared to XP.

Most of the negative feedback is from Nvidea card drivers, games not running the same as XP. This is not necessarily the fault of Vista, could be the fact its new and they are not yet optimised.

Vulcan · « **Reply #46 on:** March 25, 2007, 07:41:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wes14
i use a TCP Optimizer for my XP...

i only used it to max out all the alloted bandwidth through my modem or something like that

the modem was set for 600KB/s i believe i have it set at 2000KB/s

i think using the Optimizer i could crank it up to 4000KB/s but i don't want to fubar anything

I don't think you understand what TCP optimizer does. It does none of things you're talking about.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #47 on:** March 25, 2007, 07:57:13 PM »

Brendo, one thing about benchmarks. They can be done to prove whatever point you want to make with them. I put little stock in them.

I had read all over the net and got contridictory results. But, now that I have a Vista machine in my hands. I can categorically state it is significantly slower in everything I do everyday. I managed to get back a significant amount of the performance loss by stripping down Vista, but it is still slower than Windows 2000 was.

Would you feel better if I put together a bunch of charts and data to show why it is slower?

I now know why it is slower and it makes perfect sense. You cannot run that much software, at one time, and not have it impact the computer. But, you can get most of the lost performance back. And that is good news.

And yes, drivers are a problem with Vista. Some are worse than others.

Shuffler · « **Reply #48 on:** March 25, 2007, 08:48:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Catalyst
bite your tongue, you don't know everything skuzz, before you come all high and mighty, try a little research...

no need to use TCP Optimizer for Vista...ex: network stack, research that

and for the rest of you followers, switch to Linux if ya'll so damn scared of change...you will come back to MS eventually

still remember little kids Biatchin the same way when XP came out, now XP is the key, the platform to compare, stuff it, 2000 was better and still is better then XP...

LOL XP was never the security issue that Vista is.... now you go enjoy your vista now... while they watch

Elfie · « **Reply #49 on:** March 25, 2007, 08:52:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuffler
LOL XP was never the security issue that Vista is.... now you go enjoy your vista now... while they watch

who is *they*?

WilldCrd · « **Reply #50 on:** March 25, 2007, 10:21:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
who is *they*?

They is THEM ! DUH!!!!:rolleyes:

Elfie · « **Reply #51 on:** March 25, 2007, 10:45:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by WilldCrd
They is THEM ! DUH!!!!:rolleyes:

I was being serious, who the heck is watching Vista comps?

wetrat · « **Reply #52 on:** March 26, 2007, 12:34:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Lot of people want to do it. But, MS would tie it up in court for a bazillion years. No one can fight Microsoft. At least, no one in this country can. Even the U.S. government got stomped on my MS.

Nope, it will have to be done off shore and it would never see the light of day in the U.S.

That's what off-shore torrent sites are for

Xargos · « **Reply #53 on:** March 26, 2007, 02:41:17 AM »

I'm sure those extra treads where put in for the NSA. I bet that is part of the contract MS has with our government to track so called terrorists.

Ghosth · « **Reply #54 on:** March 26, 2007, 07:59:34 AM »

There is the mistake right there skuzzy.
In fact, specifically state that AH can not be installed, or used on a vista system.
Then make DANG sure it can't and won't work on vista.

If they want to play AH, they have to use XP or earlier os.

After all, isn't that what MS is doing to us in reverse?

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Business decision. My home PC is doing quite well running XP Pro. I do have to find a way so Vista users can play the game. Only way to do that is to work with the mess. And it is a mess. Much worse than I had originally thought.

Uh, that just ain't right.

Catalyst · « **Reply #55 on:** March 26, 2007, 08:34:21 AM »

stop comparing XP and Vista performance Skuzz, you keep repeating yourself...old news

I was talking about NET STACKS, Vista is AUTO, XP is NOT, Vista will CHANGE its stack accordingly, XP will NOT, Vista will INCREASE your speed automatically by adjusting your stacks, TCP Opt. helps to better manage your UPLOADS speed range which create a bottle neck if not set right, lowering your DOWNLOAD speed...no need for TCP Opt in VISTA

these TESTS I performed myself and saw the actual speed increase in download performance when I adjusted to upload speed accordingly...

yes Vista uses more processes, more RAM etc etc...repeat rinse and wash

RAM is cheap bud...

If not, there's always the much talked about but rarely used super OS Linux good for servers but pretty rotten for users...

you see pretty much only negative attributes for Vista, I prefer trying to stay positive and dealing with the beast...no choice really.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #56 on:** March 26, 2007, 09:28:09 AM »

It does not matter what the MTU size is set to. The ISP's routers are hard wired to a specific maximum. Either 1536 or 1500, depending on the terminal server/router brand.

If your computer makes a request larger than the above, then the packets are broken apart and reassembled on your computer.

Network stacks themselves are always dynamic. They are a linked list of packets in the operating system and have been that way since Windows 98.

An operating system cannot adjust the physical speed of your Internet connection. That is handled by the line protocol device, which is normally a modem. A modem negotiates the physical link, which includes the speed.

Even dialup connections are fixed by the modem. The OS can reduce the speed of the connection, but even a dialup connection starts at its maximum speed.

If you tested your connection over the Internet to get your result, then the tests are invalid. The Internet is too dynamic to be relied upon for any type of performance testing. To test it properly, you would have to connect two computers together, through a router. Then adjust the router settings to emulate an ISP's router. The you would have valid numbers.

And RAM is irrelevant. More RAM does not speed up processes. It only allows more room for more processes to be loaded. The CPU is still doing the work for all of that.

Windows XP Pro will be supported until January 2014. So there is a choice. And it is still a better OS than Vista. There are far more negatives about Vista than positives.

I do not care if you like the OS or not. If you like it, then peachy. But there is no point in ignoring the problems with it. And there are many problems with it.

Xargos · « **Reply #57 on:** March 26, 2007, 09:39:44 AM »

Don't you just love it when people come into your house and pick a fight with you?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #58 on:** March 26, 2007, 10:01:21 AM »

I do not mind it when people challenge me with intelligent discussions. Keeps me on my toes. I do not care for it when it gets trivialized by anyone being disrespectful of others.

Software never got better when people just blindly accepted the warts and problems with it. If anyone wants, they can go over to Microsoft's TechNet forums and read about all the problems/issues with Vista.

I would urge anyone looking for information about it, to do just that. It would not be wise to use a forum like this one to base your decision on.

DrDea · « **Reply #59 on:** March 28, 2007, 05:52:58 PM »

Skuzzy have you a list anywhere of what is needed in the back ground of XP Home on the start up and what is optional?I just know after 3 years with this install that I have a LOAD of crap waiting in the wings to eat my resources...I just dont know what is what.